An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World.
This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

US President Barak Obama's
immigration plan announced Thursday is to be commended for allowing
undocumented yet otherwise law-abiding immigrants to "come out of the
shadows and get right with the law."

However, it
overlooks one important aspect – the reason why Latinos risk their lives
to illegally enter the US in the first place. If their living situation
back home were decent enough, they would have little reason to want to
leave.

But the
situation back home for many Latinos is hardly worth sticking around
for. Take, for example, the most recent case of the 19-year old Honduran
beauty queen María José Alvarado, murdered alongside her 23-year old
sister Sofía just days before she was due to compete in the Miss World
pageant in London.

The case has helped to shed light on
Honduras' plight as the country with the highest homicide rate in the
world. The killings highlight the fragility of the security situation
and expose the weak institutions in the Central American country.

Sadly, this is not the first time the death of a beauty queen
has brought attention to violence in some Latin American countries. The
region rang in the new year with the untimely demise of former Miss
Venezuela, Mónica Spear, and her British ex-husband, murdered by
roadside burglars.

Not to mention the nationwide protests gripping Mexico
over the apprehension, disappearance and suspected murder of 43
students from Iguala, which has spun into public outcry over the
entrenched collusion between state and organized crime, which gives way
to human rights violations.

Regarding crime, Obama's
policy proposes to deport "felons, not families" and "criminals, not
children. Gang members, not a mom who's working hard to provide for her
kids."

While this would seem to make sense for those living in the US, the policy could actually be 'exporting' the gang culture
cultivated within US borders to its southern neighbors, who are much
weaker and unprepared to confront the influx of violent criminals,
thereby exacerbating the problem in Latin America.

So what
can the US do to make the situation better south of the border? Given
the geophysical proximity, one would think that boosting trade, and
thereby increasing business and making more money go around, would
behoove both sides.

However, as we previously noted, Obama showed scant interest in Latin America
during his first term in office, with a foreign policy focus on Asia
and the Middle East. That has largely continued to this day, with the
likes of the Islamic State and related issues getting the lion's share of his attention.

In LatAm, according to the World Bank'sDoing Business report,
countries such as Colombia and Mexico shot up in the 2015 ranking while
other more solid economies like Chile and Peru remained relatively
stable. The pieces are starting to fall into place, and Obama ought to
jump at the opportunity to strengthen the relationship with Latin
America as a way to preemptively address the immigration puzzle.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

COMMUNICATION BY THE HONOURABLE FRED MITCHELL MP MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND IMMIGRATION HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY, NASSAU, THE BAHAMAS (NOVEMBER 19, 2014) UPDATE TO THE HOUSE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY

I wish Mr. Speaker to repeat to the House the policy of the government
on Immigration announced on 30th October of this year. This concretized
months of work announcing that these changes were coming. This
announcement should therefore not have been a surprise to anyone.

The public is reminded that as of 1st November 2014 the following will apply:

No applications will be accepted in The Bahamas for first-time work
permit applicants who have no legal status in The Bahamas. All
first-time applicants for work permits without legal status in The
Bahamas will have to be certified as having been seen by The Bahamas
Embassy in their home country or the nearest Consular Office of The
Bahamas. There are no exceptions to this rule.

This does not apply to renewals once those are made before the current permit expires.

As of 1st November, 2014 the Passport Office will no longer issue
Certificates of Identity to those persons born of non-nationals in The
Bahamas. Those individuals who have valid Certificates of Identity must
now obtain the passport of their nationality and apply for a residency
permit which will show that they have a right to live and work in The
Bahamas. There are no exceptions to this except in accordance with our
international treaty obligations.

A Special Residency Permit will
be available for those individuals who have the right to apply for
Bahamian citizenship at the age of 18 and before their 19th birthday.
The processing fee is 100 dollars and the annual permit is 25 dollars.
These permits will only be issued to those persons whose parents are
lawfully in The Bahamas. This will allow the holder to live, work and
go to school in The Bahamas until such time as their citizenship status
is determined. These are obtained upon application at the Department of
Immigration. Applications can be obtained for the special permit
beginning on Monday 3rd November.

All people who live and work in
The Bahamas are reminded that it is prudent to have a document on your
person, at all times, which shows that you have a right to live and work
in The Bahamas.

The public is asked to be patient as the new policies unfold.

Any comments on the policy may be addressed to the Director of Immigration.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration thanks the public for their support and cooperation.
Since that time there have been unfortunate reports mainly by way of
social media which have the effect of poisoning the well with regard to
these policies. Let me repeat: The policies are generic. They are not
targeted at any particular national group.

The policies are a
logical consequence of the constitution which we have which does not
confer citizenship by birth on children born in this country whose
parents are not Bahamian. That is what we inherited and that is what we
work with.

The policies have been described in various ways by
people who seem not to wish The Bahamas any good. The names do not bear
repeating. The Prime Minister has described one critics' statements as
nonsense so I will go no further than that. That characterizes in my
view so much of the ill-informed commentary about this.

If you
will permit me a personal observation however while one must be
cognizant of the international dimension, these policies are for The
Bahamas and the only question Bahamians need to ask is whether it is in
the best interest of the country.

My surmise of the reaction to
the chord which this has struck in The Bahamas is that this strikes at
the very identity of the country and many feel that the country’s future
is threatened if actions are not taken to stem the tide of illegal and I
stress illegal migration.

I do not speak in those apocalyptic
terms but what I know is that law and order requires us to act to stem
the tide of boat after boat after boat coming to this country seemingly
unimpeded with hundreds of people on those boats with no visa, no means
of taking care of themselves and no jobs. That becomes a national
security problem. No government can stand still in the face of that.
We faced that situation in at least two months during this past year.

We have repatriated over 3000 people to their home countries this year. The cost is unsustainable.

The Detention Centre is again at capacity, just two weeks after a repatriation exercise.

There are two flights scheduled to depart next week.

So mathematics dictates this course of action.

I repeat: immigration is a blunt instrument. It is not social work.
It is a policing action and requires difficult and hard decisions.
Decision making goes in this cycle: the policy, its implementation, the
reaction. The first reaction is resistance in some quarters. This
test of the officials by those who oppose it is to see if it will shake
your resolve by creating alarm in the society, the press and the world
community. If we do not flinch, then that is the first indication to
them that the psychological climate in which the law enforcement is
operating has changed. It sends out a signal that this is a place that
illegal migrants should not come. It is that psychological mindset that
we are seeking to break.

While many have concentrated on the
campaign of misinformation, I would rather share with you what has been
said about the policy that is positive:

I quote: “It concerned us
greatly when we heard the vicious and unfair comments fielded against
The Bahamas by Mrs. Daphne Campbell. Neither Mrs. Campbell or Mrs. Jetta
Baptiste reside in The Bahamas, and therefore, we do not feel that they
have the authority to speak on behalf of Haitians and people of Haitian
descent in this country in the tone and manner in which they have
spoken. While they are free to express their opinions, we wish to make
our position clear that we oppose their suggestions that the Bahamas
should be boycotted by Americans and other nationalities via its tourism
product." – United Association of Haitians and Bahamians.

I wish
to share the results of the poll published by Umwale Rahming of Public
Domain and reported by Candia Dames of the Nassau Guardian on Monday
17th November 2014:

The sample size is 520; this is
scientifically an accurate predictor of general public opinion I am
advised for our population size:

Do you approve of the policy?

85.4 per cent said yes

With 69.4 strongly approving and 16 per cent somewhat approving and 11.8 per cent disapproving.

Do you think the new policy should be applied to both parents and children or just parents?

71 per cent said to both parents and children.

Do you think the government is doing the right thing despite the criticism in some quarters of it being too harsh?
63.2 per cent said yes, 27.9 per cent agree with the policy but wishes it were executed in a another way.

Does this new policy make you feel that the government is showing leadership?
59.5 per cent said yes

33.9 per cent said no

6.6 per cent didn’t know

The writer is Candia Dames, not known to support the work of this
government, and she wrote: “National Review has no doubt that local
support for the immigration policy will continue to hold strong. We
hope that it is sustained and intensified. On the immigration issue the
Government seems to be getting it right.”

The Leader of the Opposition made the following statement yesterday:

“We are one when it comes to the protection of our sovereignty. The
FNM believes that in the main, the actions being taken by the
administration are right and will redound to the benefit of The Bahamas
in the long term.”

Mr. Speaker, this suggests that this policy
has as close to a universal approval that you can have in this country. I
believe that is an historic first and I believe that this House and
this generation ought to salute itself for this unique accomplishment in
our history.

It is a consensus that we should not misuse or
abuse but we should seek to keep the consensus and to act in a humane
but dispassionate way to ensure that the sovereignty of our country is
protected.

I undertake to protect that consensus and to work with my opposite number, the Shadow Minister, in that regard.

I have been authorized by the Cabinet to speak with the Bahamian
community in Miami on Saturday at a meeting at St Agnes Church Hall at 6
p.m. and to meet with the Secretary General at the Organization of
American States and the CARICOM Caucus in Washington at the earliest
opportunity.

I have already met with the International
Organization for Migration (IOM) here in Nassau. I asked them whether
they can play a role in supporting the capacity of our neighbours to the
south to produce their national passports. We have been advised by the
press that some difficulties may arise with that. For the record, we
had earlier received assurances as early as the 28th July that the
production of passports would not have been a problem.

The Prime
Minister has met with the leaders of certain national groups in this
country and they have made various suggestions that are being examined.
However, it is important to say that The Bahamas should do nothing which
signals to the world that our resolve on this issue is slackening or
weakening. That would be a grave error and sabotage our future best
interests.

I spoke to the 32 men and women of the Enforcement
Unit of the Department of Immigration this morning who are headed by
Kirk at the Department of Immigration in the presence of the Director
William Pratt. They are concerned about whether their work is supported.
I assured them that it is. The Leader of the Opposition in his
statement has gone out of his way to make the point of their
professionalism in carrying of their jobs. They have the support of the
government.

I thanked them for their work and asked them once
again to be safe, to be respectful to be humane but be disciplined and
apply the law without fear or favour.

By Clément Doleac
Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Dictatorship and human rights violations in Haiti

In the past five decades, Haitian people have suffered systematic human
rights violations that were rarely condemned, thus preventing any state
from having real democratic institutions and impeding any democratic
political regime to exist.

From 1957 to 1986, the Duvalier family exerted a harsh dictatorship in
Haiti without respect for fundamental human rights, such as rights of
association, social rights, of economic rights and cultural rights.
These dictatorships received millions in US government aid under various
security and humanitarian reasons because of their role as a bulwark
against communism (such as the Trujillo dictatorship in Dominican
Republic).[1]

After being elected in 1957 and having served in office for seven years,
Francois Duvalier proclaimed himself president for life in 1964. When
he died in 1971, his son Jean-Claude dynastically took office, who was
strongly supported by the US as part of an anti-communist shield in the
country.[2] Jean-Claude fled the country due to mass protests and
political opposition against the authoritarian rule.[3] He departed on
February 7, 1986, flying to France in a US Air Force aircraft,
illustrating how he consistently benefited from the intrusive behavior
of neo-colonial powers.[4]

During the Duvalier dictatorship, thousands of recalcitrant opponents of
Duvalier were murdered, directly or indirectly by the military and the
Tonton Macoute, while abductions, extra-judiciary execution, rape, and
torture were also common practices as well. The state and its agents
were responsible for humiliating treatment, thefts, extortions, and
expropriations.[5] Around 100,000 Haitians sought asylum in foreign
countries, such as the Dominican Republic, the US base of Guantanamo,
and Florida, as well as Europe and other Latin American countries.
Nearly 300,000 persons sought refuge from Port-au-Prince to more remote
parts of Haiti.

After a transition period, the democratically elected popular priest
Jean-Bertrand Aristide came to office. In a constitutionalist action,
his ascension happened against a background of right-wing death squads
and the threat of military coups. As Haiti expert Paul Farmer once
stated, “Aristide was seen as a threat in the US.” The New York Times
wrote, in one of is more pathetic moments, pictured Aristide as “a cross
between the Ayatollah and Fidel”.[6] The Haitian economic elite shared
this dislike. As one Haitian businessman put it: “If it comes to a
choice between the ultra-left and the ultra-right, I’m ready to form an
alliance with the ultra-right”.[7] Nonetheless, Aristide was elected on
December 16, 1990, by an overwhelming 67 percent of the vote in a field
of 12 candidates.[8] No run-off was required.

In fact, the Haitian elite allied with high-ranking members of the
Haitian army and Haitian National Intelligence Service (SIN) to conspire
against the elected president. They were able to successfully overthrow
Aristide in a military coup the following year.[9]

Return to Democracy and Interference in the Hopeful Elected Presidency of Haiti

After three years of terror, Mr Jean Bertrand Aristide came back into
office in 1994 for a short amount of time in order to finish his term as
elected president. During his two years in office, Aristide abolished
the Haitian army, and in 1996 became the first elected civilian to see
another elected civilian, René Préval, succeed him as president. Préval
himself had the distinction of becoming Haiti’s first president ever to
serve out his term, neither a day more nor less than was his due.[10] In
November 2000, Aristide was reelected again for a four-year term.

Aristide’s second term, however, was undermined by the governments of
the US and France. US government hostility had been no secret since
1991, and the historical support that Washington had for the Haitian
military was clearly evident. Rebel leader Guy Philippe, for example,
had received training during the last coup at a US military facility in
Ecuador. Philippe was known to have executed several pro-democracy
activists, including Louis-Jodel Chamblain. Philippe had fled Haiti in
October 2000, when the authorities discovered him plotting a coup with a
group of security forces officials.[11]

For its part, the French government was insulted by Aristide due to his
ongoing claims about a debt France owed to Haiti. Aristide stated that
France “extorted this money from Haiti by force and should give it back
to us so that we can build primary schools, primary healthcare, water
systems and roads”.[12] He had done calculations, adding in interest and
adjusting for inflation, “to calculate that France owes Haiti
US$21,685,135,571.48 and counting”.[13]

In 2002 and 2003, several incidents occurred in the countryside during
by the US-backed right-wing militia. These included the killing of a
number of Aristide’s supporters and members of the far left-wing militia
(the so-called chimeres, “chimeras”). A raging civil war was soon
underway. In 2003, the Canadian government hosted the Ottawa Initiative
for Haiti in Montreal in order to determine the future of Haiti’s
government. Officials from Canada, France, the US and various Latin
American countries were present, yet no Haitian officials attended. The
conference resulted in an expressed preference for regime change in
Haiti in less than a year.[14]

The right-wing militia took over control of several cities in 2003 and
Cap-Haitien, the second most important city in the country, in February
2004.[15] The militia received support from sectors of Haiti’s elite as
well as from sectors of the Dominican military and government cohorts at
the time. It is also believed that they had contact with U.S. and
French intelligence.[16]

Despite massive protests supporting Aristide in Port-au-Prince and the
acceptance of an international peace plan by President Aristide on
February 21, the US and French governments, “invited” Aristide to leave
the country in order to bring peace and security again to the country.
In fact, the US military “accompanied for his own security” the
constitutionally elected president on a US Air Force flight.

The Dissident Voice reports that since then “a quasi UN trusteeship had
begun. Since that time the Haitian National Police has been heavily
militarized and steps have been taken towards recreating the
military”.[17] With the end of Aristide’s second presidential term,
human rights violations have begun to rise again. [18]

Impunity in Haiti under United Nations’ MINUSTAH presence

In 2005, the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of
the United Nations stated that the human rights violations that were
being found in Haiti still exist but did not derive from the state or
government but the system. More specifically they emanated from two
antagonistic and elderly armed sectors of the population. The first
consisted mostly of paramilitaries and ex-militaries (the Army had been
disbanded in 2005) with the objective of destabilizing the leftist
government. The second was composed of Aristides’s supporters rebelling
against him through the creation of the Front de Resistance Nationale
(FRN, “National Liberation Front”). The resulting insurrection had led
to the interposition of a United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti,
also known as MINUSTAH, over the last nine years.

Twenty-two lawsuits dealing with crimes against humanity were filed
against Jean-Claude Duvalier regarding the crimes perpetrated during his
dictatorship when he returned to Haiti in 2011. Nonetheless, Judge Jean
Carves waived every lawsuit against him within a short time. In 2014,
an appellate court declared that the lawsuits for crimes against
humanity were valid, but Duvalier died in October 2014, which was before
the statement was made. As for the violations committed by private
groups and Aristide’s supporters and opponents, most cases still go
unpunished but his estate of many millions remains an irresistible lure.

From “Yes, We Can” to “No, You Can’t”: U.S. Military Occupation after the 2010 Earthquake

The election of President Obama led to high hopes for a dramatic change
in US foreign policy in Haiti, but these were crushed by the harsh
reality of the continuity of American foreign policy, which has proven
not to roam from their grim past.

In January 2010, just after a major earthquake shook the country,
President Obama sent the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) to Haiti in
order to “secure” Port-au-Prince’s airport. After three days, SOUTHCOM’s
deployed around 22,000 members of the US military throughout the
country and a US Navy and Coast Guard flotilla surrounded the island as
if perhaps Haiti had decided to declare war on the United States, an
unsheathed memory of a troubled past.[19] The United States took full
command of Haiti’s airport and airspace without any regards to questions
of national sovereignty, and the US government restricted all entry and
exit from the country. The actions did little to improve the country’s
recovery efforts.[20]

The heavy US military presence in Haiti after the earthquake turned out
to be but a part of Obama’s larger strategy of containment of Hugo
Chavez’s Venezuela. Former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush
were chosen to lead the US civilian response, and the US government
established an Interim Haiti Reconstruction Commission with Clinton as
co-chair in order to effectively control every aspect of Haiti’s
economics and politics.[21]

The Violation of Democracy in the Name of Stability: The 2011 Elections in Haiti

Additionally, one of the priorities of the Obama administration was to
effectively hijack the Haitian electoral process in 2011. The Center for
Economic and Policy research (CEPR) released a report after the 2011
elections displaying many of the problems that had occurred with the
election.[22] The Organization of American States (OAS) concluded that
the elections represented a political decision rather than an electoral
one. Many citizens displaced by the earthquake were not allowed to vote,
and fewer than 23 percent of registered voters had their vote
counted.[23] In addition, numerous electoral violations were reported
including ballot stuffing, destroyed ballots, and intimidation.

Former First Lady Mirlande Manigat won the first round of the election
and had to run off against a second opponent. OAS election observers
chose to “examine the results”, which led to the removal of the
governing party’s candidate Jude Celestin of the Inite (“Unity”) party
in favor of a pop musician candidate Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly who,
in the end, was elected president.[24]

Ricardo Seitenfus, a special representative for the OAS in Haiti, states
that a secret ‘core group’ of foreign dignitaries sought to force the
president of Haiti out of office in a clean-cut coup. He stressed that
this core group also “engineered an intervention in Haiti’s presidential
elections that year that ensured that the governing party’s candidate
would not proceed to a runoff.”[25] It appears then that this disruption
was backed by illegal foreign intervention against the Haitian
government as well as by a series of human rights violation in which the
US government, the United Nations Secretary, and the OAS all shared
responsibility.

When Aristide tried to return to his country in 2013 after nearly ten
years in exile in South Africa, President Obama personally called South
African President Jacob Zuma twice in order to block Aristide’s
return.[26]. President Obama also effectively persuaded the French
government and UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon to join efforts in order to
prevent further “threats.” Even after the return of former Haitian
President Aristide (thanks to South Africa’s resistance to American
imperialism), the US government all but installed the neo-Duvalierist
Michel Martelly as president as a mere puppet to defend US interests.
Bill Clinton’s former aide, Mr Garry Conille, was later named Haiti’s
prime minister.[27]

After Ten Years of Military Occupation, Human Rights in Haiti are in a Much More Deteriorated State

These political intrigues and this spoliation of democracy by the US
government has not served the best interests of the Haitian people. One
of the most emblematic cases is the cholera epidemic in the country.
Even despite the fact that the United Nations constantly negated its
responsibilities, many families of victims have launched lawsuits
against the UN, stating that the epidemic were prompted mainly by some
UN soldiers from Nepal. The result of cholera epidemic was the killing
of around 10,000 Haitians in the past four years.[28]

Furthermore, several natural disasters such as the earthquake in January
2010, Storm Isaac in August 2012, and Hurricane Sandy in October 2012,
have led to the displacement of two million people who have since been
installed in refugee camps.[29] More than one year later, in December
2013, there were still nearly 150,000 persons housed in these camps.
Only 72 of these camps were built on public spaces while 229 were built
on private property.

Around 18 percent of these camps were eventually closed because of
governmental orders and 10 percent were closed due to evictions. The
evictions, carried out by police or military force without secured
alternative housing options, were a human rights violation. Most of
those evicted still have yet to find new accommodations and are still
living in the street or in miserable camps.

The institutional fragility of the Haitian state has clearly led to
unstable an undermining of economic, social, and cultural rights of the
Haitian people. The authorities are not able to provide the deserved
rights in respect the availability of fields such as alimentation,
housing, education, health or and access to jobs which are all but
ignored.

An extreme example is that child exploitation continues to remain a
reality in Haiti. Since the earthquake, some poor families have “given”
their children to rich families. The children receive education, food,
and housing in exchange for domestic tasks. In full daylight, these
children, called the “restaveks,” are exploited, deprived of their
rights, exposed to physical and verbal abuses, and are obligated to
engage in forceful and painful work under conditions slightly better
than slavery. UNICEF reported in January of 2012 that there are around
225,000 “restaveks” in Haiti.[30] Sexual violence is also a big issue in
Haiti, with around fifty cases each year, many likely to go
unreported[31].

Furthermore, the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the UN has
reported that human rights defenders have been prosecuted throughout the
country.

Civil and political rights remain fragile due to weakness of governing
state and institutions. The poor access to the judiciary system and high
crime rates in Haiti are evidence of this. The murder rate has risen
from 5.6 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 to more than 14.3 per 100,000
inhabitants in 2012. Cases of public lynching have become more prevalent
with more than 100 a year occurring between 2010 and 2012, illustrating
the low confidence in the judicial system.

Moreover, the local and legislative elections initially scheduled for
2012 have yet to occur and there is still no date for these elections to
be staged.

The Haitian president has sought to appear as to be the one fulfilling
his duty by purposing a new draft electoral law, which members of the
Senate refuse to ratify citing the unconstitutionality of the process
leading to this draft.

In addition, the situation of the Haitian people living abroad is also
of concern because they represent a very high level risk of dangerous
statelessness. In fact, many Haitian people abroad are victims of the
denial of their rights to identity, nationality, and personal dignity.

For example, in September 2013, the Dominican Republic Supreme Court
declared that the people born from illegal immigrants in the Dominican
Republic would be subject to nationality “degradation”. This Supreme
Court statement was made retroactive, since 1929, meaning Haitian
descendants born in Dominican Republic since then were being deprived of
their nationality, being neither Haitian nor Dominican.[32],[33]

Conclusion

As stated by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in
Haiti, the situation of human rights in the country is very serious. The
Independent Expert presented five ways for improving the situation: “a
strong political will, civil society active participation, a consensus
on prioritized problems to solve, a congruent coordination and
concentration of efforts, and a strong perseverance of these efforts in
order to achieve these goals.”[34] The statement may be a bit naive
considering the unremitting history of a plague of sadness, which now
haunts Haiti.

The current situation in Haiti is a result of the foreign policies of
the French, Canadian, and American governments and their allies’ (UN,
OAS, etc.) with the ongoing illegal military intervention in the
country. These interventions have brought about human rights violations,
state destabilization and massive suffering. With the current
illegitimate president inducted by the US government with the support
from the OAS, how can the situation be any different?

Military invasion, occupation, and foreign intervention has not helped
to return the country to democracy or to uphold human rights. In fact,
it has been a disaster. Today those responsible don’t want to accept
accountability for this situation and choose instead to criticize
Haitian political actors for the current condition without no regard for
these crimes. True solutions lie in respect for fair elections, popular
will, democratic life, and putting an end to military occupation.

References
[1] “François Duvalier, 1957–1971″, The Library of Congress, Country Studies, December 1989.
[2] ABBOTH, Elizabeth. Haiti: The Duvaliers and Their Legacy, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988,
[3] Report of the Special Representative of the Commission on Human
Rights, E/CN.4/1987/61, August 5th 1987, par. 1 to 3, 18 and 87.
[4] MOODY John “Haiti Bad Times for Baby Doc, ss violent protests grow, a
besieged dictator imposes martial law” in Time Magazine, Feb. 10, 1986
[5] Report of the Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1996/94, January 24th 1996, par. 8.
[6] FRENCH Howard W. “Front-Running Priest a Shock to Haiti” in The New York Times, December 13, 1990
[7] FARMER Paul “Who removed Aristide” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 8 • 15 April 2004 pages 28-31
[8] FARMER Paul “Who removed Aristide” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 8 • 15 April 2004 pages 28-31
[9] FRENCH, Howard W.; Time Weiner (14 November 1993). “C.I.A. Formed
Haitian Unit Later Tied to Narcotics Trade”. New York Times. Retrieved 6
May 2010.
[10] FARMER Paul “Who removed Aristide” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 8 • 15 April 2004 pages 28-31
[11] FARMER Paul “Who removed Aristide” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 8 • 15 April 2004 pages 28-31
[12] MACDONALD Isabel “France’s debt of dishonour to Haiti” in The Guardian, Monday 16 August 2010
[13] FARMER Paul “Who removed Aristide” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 8 • 15 April 2004 pages 28-31
[14] The details of the meeting were reported by Michel Vastel in “Haiti
put into trusteeship by the United Nations?” L’Actualité, 15 March,
2003 or in ENGLER Yves, “Media Cover-up of Canada’s Role in the Overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide”, Part 1 of a 4 Part Series, Dissident Voice, January 30th, 2014
[15] SDA-ATS News Service, 29 février 2004 “La Maison blanche appelle Jean-Bertrand Aristide à quitter le pouvoir” in Interet General, on February 29, 2004
[16] SPRAGUE Jeb, Paramilitarism and the Assault on Democracy in Haiti, Monthly Review Press, 2012.
[17] ENGLER Yves, "Media Cover-up of Canada’s Role in the Overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide", Part 1 of a 4 Part Series, Dissident Voice, January 30th, 2014
[18] [18] For more information regarding the role of US and French government in Aristide destitution, see Paul Farmer, “Who removed Aristide” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 8• 15 April 2004 pages 28-31:
[19] As stated by the US Secretary of Defense
[20] BAR editor and columnist JEMIMA Pierre “Don’t Blame Republicans for Obama’s Actions in Haiti” in Black Agenda Report (Information Blog)
[21] BAR editor and columnist Jemima Pierre “Don’t Blame Republicans for Obama’s Actions in Haiti” in Black Agenda Report (Information Blog)
[22] JOHNSTON Jake and WEISBROT Mark “Haiti’s Fatally Flawed Election” in CEPR, January 2011
[23] As stretched by a US Secretary of State report “Although turnout was higher than in 2009, it was only about 22 percent in the first round of the current election process.
[24] JOHNSTON Jake and WEISBROT Mark “Haiti’s Fatally Flawed Election” in CEPR, January 2011
[25] In an interview with Dissent Magazine, with information cited again by CEPR here and here
[26] WEIBSROT Mark, “Haiti must decide Haiti’s future “ in the Guardian, on March 17, 2011
[27] ENGLER Yves, “Media Cover-up of Canada’s Role in the Overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide”, Part 1 of a 4 Part Series, Dissident Voice, January 30th, 2014
[28] PILKINGTON Ed “Haitians launch new lawsuit against UN over thousands of cholera deaths” The Guardian, March 11 2014
[29] GALLON Gustavo, Independent UN expert report on the situation of
Human Rights in Haiti, A/HRC/25/71, February 2014, Human Rights Council.
[30] GRUMIAU Samuel, «UNICEF aids restavek victims of abuse and exploitation in Haiti», Port-au-Prince, Haïti, 31 janvier 2012
[31] GALLON Gustavo, Independent UN expert report on the situation of
Human Rights in Haiti, A/HRC/25/71, February 2014, Human Rights Council.
[32] According to his data, the number of Haitians living abroad would
be about 4.5 million people. In 2007, the International Crisis Group
estimated that a population of more than 3.71 million Haitians and
descendants of Haitians residing abroad. The reference is International
Crisis Group, “Construire la paix en Haïti: inclure les Haïtiens de
l’extérieur”, Rapport Amérique latine/Caraïbes no°24,
Port-au-Prince/Bruxelles, December 14 2007.
[33] GALLON Gustavo, Independent UN expert report on the situation of
Human Rights in Haiti, A/HRC/25/71, February 2014, Human Rights Council.
[34] GALLON Gustavo, Independent UN expert report on the situation of
Human Rights in Haiti, A/HRC/25/71, February 2014, Human Rights Council.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent,
non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information
organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of
the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For
more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org

Saturday, November 15, 2014

The modern socialist

One of the legacies of the Grenada Revolution is a strong residue of anti-communist, anti-socialist rhetoric. For the most part, persons who were hurt by, or otherwise disagreed with Grenada’s 1979 to 1983 experiment, continue to dislike or hate those who were involved with the revolution; and, even more, to hate and dislike the ideology itself.

This attitude of hatred remains, even though the Grenada Revolution ended over 30 years ago, the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and there is no longer a Soviet Union. The haters have either failed or refused to acknowledge the sociopolitical changes around them, and/or the ideological evolution that has occurred since.

I do not agree fully with the philosophy of Francis Fukuyama in his seminal work, “The End of History and the Last Man’’, but, I find this following quotation instructive: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government’’.

In the modern world only China and Cuba can be said to be “communist’’ states. In fact, that may not be a fair characterization of China. Indeed, what we are certain about China is that it is a one-party state and it has mastered the capital economic system. It has recorded historic economic growth and private enterprise flourishes, although the state continues to have control over major economic sectors. There is no doubt that the Chinese have found a model that works and they are now one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on earth.

Cuba, for its part, is a one-party state as well. In recent times under President Raúl Castro they have tried to make some reforms. However, their hands are largely tied by the wicked, unjust and archaic United States embargo, the same United States that maintains Most Favorable Trade status with China.

Now, for all the leaders in recent times who have practiced socialism, they have maintained western democratic principles. The late great Hugo Chavez, who led the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela during his time, held and won elections fair and square at every turn. His successor won the last election.

Lula de Silva, the former president of Brazil, won elections by the ballot and was able to deliver unprecedented economic growth to Brazil. Moreover, when his constitutional two terms expired there was a groundswell of support to change the constitution for him to continue and contest a third term. He politely declined.

Eva Morales of Bolivia just won a landslide victory for a third term. His economic programs have being lauded by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The two financial institutions were initially worried about his elevation as president.

Morales has stood firm against the U.S. attempt to eradicate the coca plant, which is an important economic and traditional plant for the Andean people of Bolivia. He famously once said, “I am not a drug trafficker, I am a coca farmer’’. Despite his disagreement with the U.S. he has continued to deliver for the Bolivian people.

The fact is the modern socialist has become a master of implementing capital market initiatives. I will proffer that where they differ from the Friedman approach to capitalism is that they do not subscribe to the philosophy that market forces will take care of the poor and needy in society. And, thus, they have embarked on serious social programs as safety nets to ensure that the poor and downtrodden in our societies are cared for. They have embarked on, and they have invested a large percentage of their national budgets on education, healthcare, housing and so on.

They have implemented policies where basic needs such as water, electricity and sanitation are addressed by the state directly, thereby ensuring that those who need the services the most are indeed the beneficiaries.

One can recall the Republicans in the U.S. branding President Barack Obama as a socialist for implementing the healthcare initiative commonly referred to as “Obamacare”. Persons seem to forget that the president of France is a socialist; that the British Labour Party is founded on socialist principles; and several countries in Western Europe have implemented – for years – serious socialist policies.

So, I honestly do not understand why persons do not appreciate that the modern socialist is an evolution of the communist man from the past and the current master of implementing capital market initiatives.

The modern socialist, moreover, functions within the world financial systems and, in some cases, also seeks to find alternatives like ALBA. He is not an enemy of the United States either. He may disagree with U.S. policies but he has learned a great deal from the United States and in many instances is jealous of the wealth generated in the United States and the quality of life enjoyed by some its citizens.

Being a socialist no longer means being anti-American or anti-European. It is just a conviction that the capitalist economy can be used to improve the wellbeing of the poor.

• Arley Gill is a magistrate and a former Grenada minister of culture.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

IT comes as no
surprise that the people with the loudest voices, with the most brazen
of accusations about The Bahamas’ approach to the management of illegal
immigrants and our level of “inhumanity” and “unChristianness” in the
country are, in fact, not Bahamian, and/or are not living/have not lived
in or near to the end results of illegal immigration in a small country
of islands like ours.

Rarely
are these big-mouthed voices the voices of Bahamians, particularly the
kind of Bahamians who are still struggling in The Bahamas to make decent
lives for themselves, so that they don’t also feel the need to
illegally inundate someone else’s country.

Illegal
immigration sympathisers hit below the belt with insults about our lack
of compassion, or lack of Christianity, and it is bewildering.

What
is “unChristian” about enforcing our laws – finally? Christians
shouldn’t obey laws or follow regulations? What kind of Christianity is
that? Even Christianity has its own laws and I don’t think they condone
the besieging of a country whose people have welcomed you or at least
been tolerant of your needs since you first sought refuge inside its
borders.

What
is Christian about Haitians threatening Bahamians (on any level),
illegally populating their country in droves, and then telling them it’s
not enough? How can it be that anyone could expect this to be done to
Bahamians and they not feel some type of way about it?

Moreover,
how is the welfare of illegal immigrants and their offspring a more
humanitarian cause than the welfare of legal citizens of a country and
their offspring? Shouldn’t a country get to decide priority for itself?
Who is protecting the interest of the legal Bahamian living legally in
the Bahamas?

Are
we as a country, as a world, so accustomed to being slack and passive
that to do what is obedient, to follow the laws of a land actually seems
unfair? When did right become wrong?

What
if me and 49,999 of my fellow Bahamians, natural-born or naturalised,
rolled up into any country in the world, undocumented, and said “let us
in”, demanded a right to stay, and to receive medical care, food,
education, jobs, economic opportunity, immunity from deportation, all
because, you know, immigration is normal and that country should just
accept it?

Should we not expect the people born of or patriotic to that country we just illegally bombarded to retaliate?

When
you threaten someone’s livelihood and existence, when they’ve fought
and worked so hard for the little they have, and easy access is given to
others who come through the back door, you should expect to meet the
greatest amount of resistance. I know I would expect it; but, then
again, I am law-abiding.

And
maybe that’s the missing link in the sympathisers’ argument – respect
for the rule of law. After all, if you sympathise with what is illegal,
it does beg the question of what else you might condone or be involved
in that is illegal.

The
challenge the Bahamas faces now with illegal immigration is the same
one America is facing. I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but it’s
hard to miss that members of the GOP, in the persons of Mitch McConnell
and John Boehner, are vehemently opposed to Barack Obama’s soft stance
on illegal immigrants, as many Bahamians have been for a long time with
respect to their own leaders.

All
over the internet, in online news and their respective message boards,
are countless comments of the American public expressing the same
sentiments that a majority of Bahamians do about illegal immigration to
our country. “Why do we (America) have to have our borders spreadeagle
for all to enter?” “Why is our leader not paying attention to the will
of the people?”

If
the will of the people is to be ignored, why even have borders and
border enforcement? Why have laws? Why have government? Why have
national sovereignty, if people from other countries should just flow
freely in and out as they like, for whatever reason they feel is
important?

What
if every country opened its borders to citizens from every other
country? You could choose wherever in the world you wanted to live at
any given time, for any length of time, never need a passport, and just -
bam - go there.

What a world that would be. I wonder if the sympathisers would like that.

And
once there, the incoming immigrants could just set up house on any
tract of land, including land already owned by others ... maybe even
land owned by the sympathisers. Then what?

And
what if the immigrants refused to speak to you in your language and
used any means necessary to gain ownership of what you’ve worked for?
Then what?

Is
that what we’re aiming for? If so, what are we waiting on? Just open
all borders now, one time, everywhere, and let us have a free-for-all.

No? Because it might be too disorderly?

Well maybe now you’re starting to get the point.

The
difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration is that
the former is done in an orderly fashion to prevent the chaos that
occurs if done in the disorderly, illegal way.

When will the sympathisers get that?

No
one is saying there should be no immigration; any person with half a
brain can examine the foundations of the developed world and see how the
work done by immigrants has helped to create world powers. Everyone has
a skill that is useful somewhere, and a purpose to match it.

No
one is saying a human being has no right to want to try for a better
life in a place where they weren’t born. But there is usually an
existing process to accomplish this. And it must be respected. Illegally
entering a country, knowing you’re illegal, is blatant disrespect to
that country, and it earns no compassion amongst that country’s
law-abiding when illegality is your chosen route.

If
my Bahamian mother entered and lived illegally in the United States,
gave birth to me there, miraculously under the radar, even though I
would have been a citizen at birth according to US law (as is not the
law of the Bahamas), my mother would not have got a free pass; she
wouldn’t have inherited the right to stay in America because I was born a
US citizen.

She
would have still been illegal, could have still been deported, and, as
my primary caretaker, I would have had to go with her until I was old
enough to survive on my own in the place where I had citizenship, a
choice I would most likely make by the time I was ready for college, at
or near the age of 18.

In
contrast, with respect to the laws of the Bahamas and its illegal
Haitian immigrants, Bahamian citizenship at birth is not an option. And
Haitian citizenship/nationality at birth is not elective for Haitian
children illegal in the Bahamas ... they’re Haitian children. They take
their parents’ nationality. And they should take it with pride. They
have a motherland. Why is this confusing?

Why
are others – sympathisers and abusers of our Bahamian law – trying to
superimpose a law on us that does not exist? Because it suits their own
needs/benefits.

If
you are illegal in the Bahamas, and you give birth to one child or 14
children in the Bahamas, you and your children are still illegal in the
Bahamas. If you find yourself in a quandary at any point in time because
of this fact, it’s because of your own choice to drop your babies on
Bahamian soil.

You
created this problem for yourself, because we have a law which has
always been clear: you only have a right to apply for Bahamian
citizenship (whether you reside legally or illegally) if you are born in
the Bahamas to non-Bahamian parents, and only at the age of 18. That
does not mean you stay here until you are 18. And the life you live if
you choose to remain is a result of your own doing. You should apply
for your children’s passports from your birth country, from the time
they are born.

For
that matter, there is no one born in the Bahamas without the right to
claim any citizenship status at all, ie rendering them “stateless”; they
have other citizenship status whether they want it or not. They always
have, and they always will, until such time that they renounce it and,
legally, take another.

In
the latest (November 1) enforcement of new Bahamian immigration law,
Haitians especially (some Bahamians and others, additionally) claim the
required time frame is too short notice for those illegally in the
Bahamas to get the documents required of them to lawfully remain in the
Bahamas.

But
how can any illegal immigrant fix their mouth to say the new law
doesn’t provide enough time for them to get legal citizenship documents?
They’ve had 40 years to do it!

And
each time they pushed out another baby, they should have gone to their
country’s embassy to apply for a passport for the child – that is, of
course, if they intended for that child to be a citizen of their own
birth country, which is most often not the case.

Regarding
Bahamian citizenship rights, the law has always been (since 1973) what
it is today and if you did anything counter to it, and still do, you’ve
always been illegal. Either you chose not to concern yourself with the
law and what it might have required of you, or you knew the law and
deliberately chose to go against it. And ignorance nor belligerence are
excuses for breaking the law.

With
specific regard to illegal Haitian immigration to the Bahamas, and
where we find ourselves today, there is much blame to throw around: from
the Bahamian government’s historic timidity towards immigration law
enforcement/creation, to the Bahamian employers and boat captains who
open the gateway for illegal immigrants, to the Haitian government that
doesn’t direct the Haitian people to stay at home and build up their
country.

But,
beyond this blame-throwing, there is one inescapable fact that anyone
pleading on behalf of illegal Haitian immigrants cannot deny: there is
one place where the problem can be entirely resolved.

If
Haiti cared about the problem the Bahamas has endured for decades with
nonstop illegal Haitian immigrants, Haiti would have stemmed the problem
from within its own borders before it ever became a problem for the
Bahamas. Haiti has enough manpower to do that. And if they did this at
the root of the illegal immigrants’ departure from Haiti, the Bahamas
wouldn’t have the enormous problem with illegal Haitian immigration that
it does today.

Considering
this reality, that the Haitian government is well-positioned to prevent
its own people’s illegal migration to the Bahamas, is it any wonder,
then, why Bahamians take issue with their Haitian sisters and brothers
who flock here by the hundreds? It’s an awful abuse of a friendly
relationship.

In
the Bahamas, we have a couple of sayings which describe when a person
takes advantage of another, or a situation: “You get too use”, or “you
too familiar”, or “you wear out your welcome”.

In the end, no one likes a user or an abuser – especially the abused – even if they do still love them.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Int’l Group Slams New Immigration Laws

By Jones Bahamas:

A U.S. based human rights group over the weekend slammed
the country’s recently implemented immigration policies and accused The
Bahamas government of discrimination and claimed that the recent raids
on immigrants in the country were strictly aimed at those of Haitian
descent.

However, officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were quick to
respond and shut down these comments from the Robert F. Kennedy Centre
for Justice and Human Rights (RFK Centre) calling them “nonsense.”

On Friday the RFK Centre issued a statement on its website regarding
the controversial and closely watched immigration exercises and noted
that their leaders “express alarm at the discriminatory use of new
immigration policies in The Bahamas.”

On Saturday November 1 new immigration policies came into effect that
seek to clamp down on all foreigners living and working in the country.

All non-nationals residing in The Bahamas must show evidence that they have permission to live or work in the country.

“According to reports from Bahamian civil society, children born in
The Bahamas to migrant parents were given 30 days notice to apply for
and secure a passport from the country of origin of their parents or
face expulsion, despite the significant financial burdens this new
policy imposes and with no consideration for an ordinary processing time
of over two months to secure a passport in some cases,” the human
rights watchdog said.

“While the government of The Bahamas insists that the measures are
not aimed at any national group, Bahamian civil society organisations
have related that officials are targeting immigration raids at
neighborhoods where the population is predominantly of Haitian descent.
The RFK Centre received a report of at least one government-run school
that, as of Monday, started to require students to bring their
identification with them in order to access the classroom.”

President of the RFK Centre Kerry Kennedy said statehood is a
fundamental human right, but added these reports “indicate that the
Bahamian government regards it as a tool for discrimination.”

“These new policies mean that thousands of children in The Bahamas
now live in fear of arbitrary arrest or deportation,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“The Bahamas must immediately fulfill its obligation to protect
children-no matter their status, and no matter their ethnicity.”

On November 1, 77 people, including Haitians, Filipinos, Chinese and Jamaicans, were all arrested during that sting operation.

A second operation over the weekend saw nearly 50 more immigrants arrested.

The RFK Centre said based on information it has received, many of
those detained in the first operation were forced to remain in custody
until the immigration office reopened the following Monday and they
could prove their valid status and that many were not provided the
opportunity to seek legal counsel, apply for asylum, or appeal their
deportation orders.

“The reports coming out of The Bahamas indicate that the government
is endangering the human rights of people in immigration detention,
including the right to due process and the rights to humane treatment
and health,” according to Executive Director of RFK Partners for Human
Rights Santiago A. Canton.

“The government must immediately bring its immigration policies and
practices in line with its binding international human rights
obligations.”

These comments did not sit well with Ministry of Foreign Affairs
officials who shot back with a statement of their own on Saturday.

In fact, ministry officials said representatives from the RFK Centre never contacted them for comment on the matter.

“The statement by the RFK Centre over the new immigration policies is
replete with errors,” the government statement read. “It is deplorable
that a reputable body would repeat such nonsense.

The policy is not discriminatory either in its execution or its
effects and there were no massive raids. No raids were conducted by the
Department of Immigration at all.

“It is not true that those released had to await the opening of the
Immigration Office on Monday. Those are just some examples of a
statement that is loose with the truth and defames The Bahamas. The
statement is terribly disappointing. There is a rule in Bahamian folk
tradition: if you don’t know shut your mouth. If you want to know, just
check. This is a completely open and transparent society, with nothing
to hide.”

Foreign Affairs officials also responded to claims made in an article
that appeared in the Miami Herald on Friday and noted that despite what
was published; the Haitian Ambassador to The Bahamas Antonio Rodrigue
has not been recalled to Haiti and he has been summoned to the Haitian
Foreign Office.

“The Bahamas Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken to the Haitian
ambassador and the truth is that he traveled to Haiti for consultations
with the Haitian government, not withdrawn as ambassador to The Bahamas
as the Herald’s story suggested,” officials said.

“The Haitian foreign minister and the Bahamian foreign minister are
to speak (today) by telephone and may meet in Tokyo next week. The
Bahamian ambassador to Haiti attended a meeting with the minister of
foreign affairs of Haiti on November 6 and assured him that there was no
abuse or inhumane treatment of Haitian nationals in The Bahamas in
connection with the enforcement of the new immigration policies.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also noted that when Haitian
President Michel Martelly visited The Bahamas on July 28, the prime
minister of The Bahamas advised the president of the steps that The
Bahamas government would take with regard to immigration matters.

The matters, they said, were similarly discussed between the two
foreign ministers of The Bahamas and Haiti at the United Nations General
Assembly in September.

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Bolivia's demand that Chile provide it with sovereign access to the
Pacific Ocean – a case the International Court of Justice in The Hague
is soon to consider – offers the opportunity for the two countries to resolve their over 130-year dispute once and for all.

Bolivia
lost its access to the ocean, along with a large chunk of its
territory, to Chile in the Pacific War in the 1880s. Chile's argument is
that it's an open and shut case – the 1904 peace treaty decided on the
definitive and current border between the two and that is
internationally recognized as valid. In fact, Santiago has decided to
argue that the UN court does not even have jurisdiction to hear the case
at all, because recognition of the court by both countries dates back
to the 1948 Bogotá Pact, and so the tribunal does not have jurisdiction
to hear cases that concern matters prior to then.

Bolivia's case,
however, does not depend on arguing for the need to change the 1904
treaty. Instead, it is expected to claim that Chile has on several
occasions pledged to resolve Bolivia's demand, most notably during a
1975 meeting between Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and his Bolivian
counterpart Hugo Banzer. On that occasion the two agreed in principle to
swap two pieces of territory, granting Bolivia a strip of land in the
far north of Chile from the coast and along the border with Peru, which
also lost a lot of land to its southern neighbor following the Pacific
War. The idea never prospered, not least because of objections from
Lima.

Bolivia's case is interesting, but as it doesn't actually
seem to involve disputing legal documents but amounts more to what
appears to be a moral argument – that Chile has some sort of obligation
(a legal one?) to negotiate a solution to the issue – it is difficult to
see how The Hague court can side with La Paz.

The above,
however, begs the question as to whether Chile does indeed have a moral
obligation to provide Bolivia with access to the sea. It is certainly
easy to be sympathetic to the Bolivians. Losing the ocean drastically
changed Bolivia's history, with serious detrimental effects for its
economy and development. Not only did it lose access to ports, but the
land ceded to Chile turned out to contain some of the largest copper
deposits in the world, which have had a major beneficial impact on
Chile's economy. Landlocked Bolivia, meanwhile, remains one of the
poorest countries in the western hemisphere.

But whatever the
outcome of the court case – and it may take years before we have a
decision – it is in both countries' interest to resolve the issue. It
may be politically unfeasible for Chile to offer a sovereign piece of
land to Bolivia, but one possibility – which has also been suggested as a potential solution
in parts of the Ukraine and even the Falklands/Malvinas – would be for
Bolivia to have technical sovereignty of a small plot with a port, while
Chile remains the de facto administrator of the area in terms of legal
jurisdiction, political control etc. Another option, which Chile has
refused to consider, is to get Peru involved, as that country has made a port area available to Bolivia in the past, although without sovereignty.

As
for Chile, there would be obvious advantages for the country if Bolivia
were wealthier, with all the trade and investment opportunities that
would represent. Ending the dispute would also open the way for Bolivia
to export some of its vast reserves of natural gas to Chile, thereby
helping alleviate the country's energy shortage and avoiding the need to
import liquefied natural gas from as far afield as Trinidad, Qatar and
Yemen, among other places, which is patently absurd given the proximity
of Bolivia's reserves.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

When it comes to climate change,
Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the
Grenadines doesn’t mince words. He will tell you
that it is a matter of life and death for Small
Island Developing States (SIDS).

For
St. Vincent’s Prime Minister
Ralph Gonsalves, climate change is a
matter of life and death.

"The threat is not abstract, it is
not very distant, it is immediate and it is real,"
Gonsalves told IPS.

"The country which I have the honor
of leading is a disaster-prone country. We need to
adapt, strengthen our resilience, to mitigate, we
need to reduce risks to human and natural assets
resulting from climate change.

"This is an issue however, which we
alone cannot address. The world is a small place and
we contribute very little to global warming but yet
we are on the frontlines of continuing disasters,"
Gonsalves added.

Since 2001, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines has had 14 major weather events, five of
which have occurred since 2010. These five weather
events have caused losses and damage amounting to
more than 600 million dollars, or just about a third
of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

"Three rain-related events, and in
the case of Hurricane Tomas, wind, occurred in 2010;
in April 2011 there were landslides and flooding of
almost biblical proportions in the northeast of our
country; and in December we had on Christmas Eve, a
calamitous event," Gonsalves said.

"My Christmas Eve flood was 17.5
percent of GDP and I don’t have the base out of
which I can climb easily. More than 10,000 people
were directly affected, that is to say more than one
tenth of our population.

"In the first half of 2010 and the
first half of this year we had drought. Tomas caused
loss and damage amounting to 150 million dollars;
the April floods of 2011 caused damage and loss
amounting to 100 million dollars; and the Christmas
Eve weather event caused loss and damage amounting
to just over 330 million. If you add those up you
get 580 million, you throw in 20 million for the
drought and you see a number 600 million dollars and
climbing," Gonsalves said.

Over the past several years, and in
particular since the 2009 summit of the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change in
Copenhagen, the United States and other large
countries have made a commitment to help small
island states deal with the adverse impacts of
climate change, and pledged millions of dollars to
support adaptation and disaster risk-reduction
efforts.

On a recent visit to several Pacific
islands, Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated
the importance of deepening partnerships with small
island nations and others to meet the immediate
threats and long-term development challenges posed
by climate change.

But Gonsalves noted that despite the
generosity of the United States, there is a scarcity
of funds for mitigation and adaptation promised by
the global community.

Opposition legislator Arnhim Eustace
is concerned that people still "do not attach a lot
of importance" to climate change.

"When a fellow is struggling because
he has no job and can’t get his children to school,
don’t try to tell him about climate change, he is
not interested in that. His interest is where is my
next meal coming from, where my child’s next meal is
coming from, and that is why you have to be so
careful with how you deal with your fiscal
operations," he stated.

Eustace, who is the leader of the
opposition New Democratic Party, said people must
first be made able to meet their basic needs to that
they can open their minds to serious issues like
climate change. (Excerpts from IPS)

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Crafting a Firm and Fair Immigration Policy

Former US President Ronald Regan once said that “A nation that cannot
control its borders is not a nation”. For years, successive governments
in this country have failed to adequately control our borders and have
failed to effectively address the long standing socio-economic problems
stemming from the movement of illegal migrants across our borders. The
absence of firm and fair immigration policy has given rise to
resentment, anger, hatred, frustration and fear that has, particularly
in recent weeks, spilled over in the public domain.

On
November 1, this Christie led administration took the first of what will
undoubtedly be a series of difficult steps to securing sustainability
for future generations of Bahamians.

As a former Minister
of Immigration, I understand all too well the challenges associated with
this process. Regardless of those challenges however, THE LAWS OF THE BAHAMAS MUST BE CARRIED OUT!

While
the Democratic National Alliance commends the government for finally
taking seriously its responsibility to protect our borders, this issue
cannot – as has been the case with other matters – be allowed to become
overly politicized or emotionalized. Instead, a sound and humane
approach which does not destroy the dignities of our fellow brothers and
sisters –particularly children – should be taken to facilitate
immigration reform in this country.

As Bahamians, we can
no longer abdicate responsibility for the role successive
administrations have played in allowing this matter to grow and
intensify. We must not pretend that systemic corruption within the
Department of Immigration which has manifested in the sale of passports
and travel documents, the bribery of immigration officers, the
over-charging of applicants and the general exploitation of the current
system, has not also contributed to the critical situation which now
exists.

It must be noted that while Haitian migrants
continue to make up a large segment of the country’s illegal immigrant
population, Haitians should not be the sole target of such efforts. With
that in mind the DNA calls for balance on the part of officials as they
work to weed out persons of ALL nationalities living and working in the
Bahamas illegally. As these efforts continue, the DNA calls for calm
from Bahamian citizens and legal residents as immigration officials work
to carry out their duties as mandated by law. We should all refrain
from making derogatory and/or negative comments about any group of
people on social media or any other forum but must work along with the
government to ensure the success of these new initiatives.

As
part of its push this government must also focus on a bi-partisan
approach to formulating a clear and concise immigration policy. A policy
which targets not only illegals but those who harbor, aid and abet them
as well. As an addition to the current policy changes, the DNA
recommends that the government go a step further by enacting legislation
which would bring about the swift prosecution to those Bahamians found
harboring those here illegally. The law must also hold repercussions for
legal residents who also harbor illegals including the possible
revocation of their legal status.

During a press
conference to be held on Thursday November 6, 2014, The DNA will present
its full position on the current immigration policies and future
changes to the law as well.

Certainly the failures of
former governments are now wreaking havoc on our modern day Bahamas. The
many issues resulting from illegal immigration did not occur overnight
and will not be solved overnight. It will take a sustained effort on the
part of all the relevant authorities and Bahamians across the country.
Decisive and Balanced Action must be taken as we work to protect our
country for generations of Bahamians to come.

Migration report: Immigrants represent 18 percent of population

The total immigrant population in The Bahamas stood at 64,793, representing 18.4 percent of the population up to 2010, according to the Migration Report which was released this month.

The report relies on data contained in the latest census.

“The 2010 Census recorded a total immigrant population of 64,793 persons, of which 29,157 were recent immigrants who migrated to The Bahamas during the intercensal period 2000 to 2010,” the report said.

Of that group, 51,170 people (79 percent) were not born in The Bahamas.

And of the foreign born migrants, 47 percent (24,049) were born in Haiti, 16 percent in the United States, 13 percent in Jamaica and three percent each in Canada and the United Kingdom, the report notes.

Collectively, those countries accounted for 82 percent of the immigrant population.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) previously estimated that there are between 20,000 and 50,000 Haitians living in The Bahamas. Although the IOM notes the challenges in presenting accurate figures of the number of Haitians who have migrated to The Bahamas as it is difficult to determine those who are “flow through” residents and those who intend to remain in the country.

Multiple officials, including those from the IOM, have identified the country’s close proximity to the United States as a key factor contributing to irregular migration. Migrants often use the country as a transit point.

According to the Migration Report, as it relates to population distribution, of the total immigrant population, 70 percent resided on the island of New Providence, 16 percent on Grand Bahama, seven percent on Abaco; Eleuthera and Exuma shared equal distributions of two percent of the immigrants. The other Family islands accounted for four percent.

As it relates to employment, 55 percent of the immigrants age 15 and over were employed with slightly more than three quarters were employed in the private sector. An additional 12 percent were government employees while 10 percent operated their own business.

“Of the total immigrants 15 years and over, 45 percent of them had completed high school and 31.8 percent had completed college or university, while four percent had no schooling,” the report said.

The 2010 Census recorded a total of 29,157, persons who migrated to The Bahamas during the period 2000 to 2010. Of this number 52.7 percent were females and 43.3 percent were males for a sex ratio of 89.9 males per 100 females, the report said.

Recent immigrants have an average household size of 3.1 persons. Additionally 46.2 percent of the households occupied by these immigrants were one-person households.

The report said 62.5 percent of the immigrants were paying rent, 15.1 percent owned their homes fully, 10.6 percent were paying a mortgage, 10.1 percent were living rent-free and one percent was leasing their homes.